Search form

Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong

There has been yet another mass shooting, something that now seems to occur on a monthly basis. Every time another tragedy like this occurs, gun advocates make the same arguments about why we can't possibly do anything to restrict the weaponization of our culture. Here's a guide to what they'll be saying in the coming days:

1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.

We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.

If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.

5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?

The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.

6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.

Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.

7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.

If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

8. Guns are a part of American culture.

Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.

9. The American people don't want more gun control.

The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.

10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.

OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.

You sir are wrong. Assault weapon and assault rifle are two different things. the term assault came from anti gun advocates in 1989. It Didn't even have a technical meaning until the the late 90's. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic weapon with military cosmetics such as a pistol grip, adjustable stock, and flash hider. Now, i assume that you will make the argument that the"AR" in AR-15 stand for assault rifle, but that isn't true either. AR is the initials of the company just like the "AK" in AK-47. all of these weapons get a bad rap because Anti-gun advocates in the 1980's and 90's decided to create a stupid phrase that made people think that assault weapons were the same as assault rifles (a fully automatic service weapon that fires up to 1000 rounds per minute). a semi auto can only fire up 90 rounds per minute if you can even pull the trigger that fast the internal mechanics limit that too. oh, and by the way if you own any weapons with military cosmetics them its an assault weapon regardless of the caliber, so that .30/06 may be an assault weapon.

You don't need "assault" rifles? Do you know the definition of an assault weapon? I doubt you do, so here it is:
-A rifle with a 16" barrel or less
-Select fire capability (full automatic in other words)
-Able to accept standard capacity magazines
-Can mount a bayonet/bayonet lug
-Pistol to intermediate rifle caliber
Back to the point: Cars kill more people per year than guns. So why do you need a 200mph Corvette? Why punish the 99% of gun owners for the actions of a few? Research shows that less than 2% of murders committed with guns are "assault" weapons. Unless you have professional training with full automatic weapons, chances are you would do less damage than a 12 gauge shotgun due to all the consecutive recoil. Even in the Sandy Hook shooting, the killer used two pistols and a shotgun. His AR-15 was in the trunk the entire time. I love the things, and I don't want it to be revoked from me for no logical reason.

Actually.... No. 3 DOES happen... It just doesn't make the news. (At least two stories I saw on it in the last MONTH.)
Mass murder is news... taking out a gunman w/o anyone getting hurt is not news.

As to police shooting bystanders -- They are not disciplined enough!!!!
They should not be allowed to carry a gun if that's the best they can do!
A lot of police are just in the job to push people around. And when the DAs fail to prosecute the police when they act wrongly it fails to make them MORE CAREFUL. They need to be held accountable. Just as do all Gun Owners.

LACK of Responsibility in America is the damn Problem.
Along with Rights goes Responsibility.

Only after years of seeing Politicians and Corporations have Power w/o Responsibility EVERYONE have abandoned Responsibility.

I have the solution but no one will be smart enough to agree with me: Anyone who has received military or law enforcement training gets a lifetime unrestricted permit to bear firearms revokable only due to insanity or felony conviction. Civilians may obtain the same permit by completing a five week week course similar to the police academy. The second amendment probably prevents the federal government from enacting these requirements but they could be passed by all fifty states, people over a certain age could be grandfathered out so to speak.

I have never owned a gun, and as of now don't plan to. I dislike holding them, and don't enjoy shooting. So I can assure you, the heart of my arguments are not that I like to "play with guns." I consider this a fundamental issue that does go simply beyond gun control, but also includes the role of the government. But that's not what's being dissed here, I digress. If you want to know the *actual* argument gun owners make, then please, just read through this:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Before you say it's not even worth reading due to the url, just know that every single statement made is sourced. These are respectable sources, which are displayed so you can go to the original studies and whatnot.

Furthermore, I don't care what side any of you all are one, but there is far too much hate and argumentative fallacies all around the board. Please leave out the dogmatism; respectable people ARE allowed to disagree. Intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions from the same information, and that doesn't mean that one entire opinion, and everyone associated with it, must be discredited. The important thing is to legitimately look at how the opposing side reached their conclusions (instead of setting up "straw man" arguments like this article does), and see whats lying at the heart of the issue rather than throwing out shallow comparisons or numbers where you don't know where they came from.
Also, I really do understand the anti-gun sentiment. As I said, I'm very unfamiliar with them and have never liked being in the presence of one. I used to be anti-gun myself, but with more time and research, I found information I didn't have before and thought about it another way. That doesn't mean I was stupid before, or I'm suddenly stupid now. With any controversial issue ever, there are lot of layers at play, and the layer that offends someone's ideology isn't usually a superficial one. Accept the fact that concrete numbers will never prove one side valid and another invalid without a doubt. (And I'm not saying that to dodge the numbers game, I have a fair amount I could throw out myself, including studies of gun defense and commonly misplayed numbers, like over half of the 30,000 gun deaths a year are just suicide, football games kill twice as many students as guns, even conservative studies have reported 1.5 million annual incidents where guns were used in self defense, -these are all mentioned in the article I linked- etc etc...)
The point is, this issue isn't just a numbers game where "anyone with a reasonable brain" will have one opinion. It comes down to the fact that people have fundamentally different interests at heart which goes waaay beyond guns when debating this issue. Nobody wants innocent people killed, and that's the one thing I believe everyone here *does* agree on. And nobody is saying deaths are a "price worth paying" either. For some people, this comes down to the question of what is government's role, and what is appropriate restrictions on those lines. While it's clearly unreasonable to demand people by law to exercise or brush their teeth, or to not consume excess salt, protecting a peoples' right to the pursuit of happiness is never that clear. The boundaries are always fuzzy when it comes between doing what's best for the people, or what is simply harming them on the individual level. It's not even about the power of the government either, but the diversity of people under it's control. Different problems exist within different communities, and what may help one area may be a financial drain and endless paperwork in another, or even limit innocent activities. In some ways issues like this could be resolved by handling some issues on a state or even county level, instead of federally. As far as federal government goes, I personally want it's first priority to be protecting its people from foreign or domestic murder (The first step in our pursuit of happiness, but there's only so many things government can regulate before protecting that pursuit becomes limiting that pursuit). However, I also personally have a problem when in trying to "protect me" the government also eliminates my right to protect myself. People are not naturally born with equal capabilities on all regards, nor should they be. Some people are trained in throwing knives or martial arts, create homemade makeshift weapons, or are born strong or weak. Pepper spray could save a woman from sexual assault. You could also pepper spray someone in the face so you could easily beat them to death. Imagine if pepper spray was carried more by offenders than defenders. As far as guns shooting 60 bullets a second and killing larger crowds of people, well machine guns or automatics in general aren't allowed to the public already as it is, and they aren't what you usually see in today's mass murders either. What's technically listed as 'assault weapons' has also never been a weapon of choice for murders, and has only accounted for a small percentage of armed crimes. In Chicago your 67 times more likely to be killed with a knife than a gun. -Try looking up and comparing the change of crime rates in states that passed conceal carry laws- Here's a hint: They dropped by a lot where concealed carry was legal. Furthermore, police are not legally required to protect everyone on an individual level, but just the public in general. Polled felons show to be more worried about running into an armed victim than a police officer. "The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour." "As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.(23)" Also, contradictory to what this article state, armed citizens kill twice as many criminals per year than police, and at a MUCH SMALLER ERROR RATE.
"* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)(25). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."(26)"

Anyways, I'm done for now with number or individual points. But seriously, try reading that article to read what gun ownership advocates are *actually* arguing.

And furthermore, I apologize if any of my facts were incorrect or whatnot. It could happen to any of us, and I'm not personally an expert who is researching the issue. Just don't let irritation at the point I'm arguing get in the way of other potentially valid things I've said, especially those which aren't directly related to gun control. People these days are way to quick to discredit an entire side without looking carefully through a whole argument with a clean, legitimate approach to gain understanding about the fundamental differences between the two sides. Nothing is as black and white as people usually think...

Point 2. is WRONG. The UK has 5 times the violent crime that we do, mainly because there are no guns that the criminals feel free to attack virtually anyone any time. Citizens are not even allowed to carry any item with which they could defend themselves. They have been directed to retreat when attacked or their houses invaded. There report of low gun deaths is WAY OFF because they only list solved murders, which leaves out all other categories. The UK is a violent place and the people have to live in fear.

Very simply, guns are a necessary evil as we will never be devoid of the 4% of the population that are sociopaths and psychopaths and will always have mentally deranged and we will always have people who are just plain evil. It's simply stupid to think that one should not be able to defend oneself from these people.

For example, guns are the great equalizer. Is it reasonable to tell an elderly couple that their only choice in a home invasion is to retreat and/or die. Retreating is meaningless if the invaders are out to hurt or kill them. So, disarming the elderly says that they are all to be victims and the criminals know this. That's just wrong.

Now, allow these people to have a gun and the balance of power shifts drastically. Sure, they stand a chance of losing to the invaders but they now have a very real chance of prevailing. The liberal claim that if they lost, the result would be that the invaders get the gun, and so the elderly should not have guns in order to keep guns away from the criminals. This is a specious argument that simply throws the elderly under the bus for the sake of a possible result. In their minds, the elderly are dead already, I guess they think it's their fault for getting old?

1. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. You are are first line of defense and unless you are a martial arts master, a gun is the great equalizer no matter how big your attacker, or how many.

2. It is undeniable that, the more legal guns there are, the lower crime is. In every state that has adopted Shall Issue Concealed Carry crime of all kinds has decreased 1-3% per year after adoption. Criminals admit that they are worried about their victims fighting back and now they might be armed.

3. It is also undeniable that the regions and cities with the most strict gun controls have the highest crime rates, out of control and illegal guns from illegal gun-trafficking abound.

Australia has had huge increases in gun crime since they banned rifles and shotguns, up 31%. Home invasions are up 68%! In the same time period US crime has decreased 34%. The crime rates in other countries are interesting. Our rate is not bad overall, but if we leave out the inner cities, where guns are banned, the US is among the safest on the planet. You will never hear that from the anti-gunnists.

4. Indeed we need weapons because without the 2nd Amendment we do not have a 1st Amendment. History has shown this to be true over and over. Anyone who thinks that one can revolt against a country when unarmed is totally deluded and living in a fantasy world. Governments ultimately find their power in the barrel of a gun. Recently, a Federal Court even stated that it is the citizens' duty and right to try to keep their weapons up with the military. he said, they will never be equal, but they have a right to upgrade as they can.

5. Assault-style weapons are NOT assault rifles that can be on full automatic. They are not even as powerful as our lower-end hunting rifles. When somebody says that 7 rounds is all you need in a magazine, the response should be that the number of rounds needed is "As Many As It Takes." A magazine limit is arbitrary. Small clips can be replaced quite rapidly, are less likely to jam, and easier to handle.

People should ask themselves this important question: Does limiting the capacity of a magazine change the lethality of the first bullet?

6. The claim that gins in the home are dangerous and result in many deaths, such that family members are more likely to be shot than a criminal, is ingenuous. The overwhelming majority of home gun deaths are suicides, with only a small number of accidental discharges. Suicides will simply find some other means.

@Sunstroked. Regarding your 12/18/2012 7:50 comment. Your pencil example is incorrect. If I ask the question, "What do you do with a pencil?" The answer is simple. Write with it. If I were to ask the same question, "What do you do with a gun?" The answer to that question would be, "SHOOT IT." Not, as you say, kill with it. Just as the person using the pencil has the power to choose what to write and where to write it, the person with the gun chooses what to shoot and where to shoot. What you fail to understand is, in the wrong hands, a pencil is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. You can ban guns all day long. But you can't ban evil.

Be a responsible gun owner and lead your friends and family members to gun ownership by example. Responsible gun owners know how to get many likes on instagram the obligations that come with the use and enjoyment of firearms. Hunting and recreational firearms use are a tradition in some parts of the country. We have no objections whatsoever to such legitimate activities, so long as they respect the standards and laws of the local community. Responsible, law-abiding owners know how to get likes on instagram better than anyone the inherent dangers posed by the simple presence of a gun. Once in possession of your first firearm, you can proudly say that you are doing your part to "keep guns out of the wrong hands."

Does anybody out there know What a assault weapon is?
The M16 is a assault weapon,the bushmaster,ar15,m400 are a lookalike,semi-auto. Shoots a bullet 223cal,yes the size of a 22 only at a velocity 3250 ft per second. You can't spray a room,you can't kill 10 people in 5sec. It doesn't have the kinetic energy to knock a man down. A mini- 14 fires the same bullet,wooden stock 10 shot clip,looks like a 22 rifle.(not scary).
The weapons that should be banned are the tech9,ingram mini mac 10&11.
These are the weapons that have no purpose except killing people.
A gun dealer told me how do you convert a mini mac11 to full auto-answer shoot it. It has cheap parts and the sear wears out by just shooting it.
I have an so called assault rifle, why?
I gave up hunting years ago-I only target shoot,a 22 rifle is the cheapest way to shoot,not very accurate,and not accurate at all over 100yds.
the assault weapons are very accurate (high speed) at long range
They are very well built,weather resistant, rail systems to add scopes,large amount of accesories and a lot of fun shooting. The so called assualt is way down the lineup of guns you would use to kill alot of people. Ask a vet, ask a marine. Shotguns are much more dangerous.10,20,30 balls of steel with each shot,semi-auto. The best thing about the 223cal,you can shoot a 100rds without a black and blue shoulder.
In WW2 they found out many soldiers never fired their weapons,to much recoil from the 1903 springfieild,heavy ammo.
They also came to the realization that a weapon that wounds is better than on that kills. It takes two men to carry the wounded man of the battlefied.
eliminate 3 men with 1 shot. Hello M16,light ammo,weather resistant,more likely to wound than kill,but can be switch to full auto when needed(so called assualt weapons can't)

1. Saying now is not the right time to talk about guns is taken out of context. What people said was along the lines, "Now is not the right time to trump a political stance in light of the terrible tragedy which occurred." And this was happening particularly with celebrities (who ironically star in action, horror and other highly violent movies filled with guns and gun violence).

2. The article admits, "maybe." Not maybe, but true! Guns don't kill people, people kill people and therefore, responsibility must be taken with those people willing to kill others.

The problem is that liberal theology is against capitol punishment - a deterrent to murderers - and cracking down hard on crime. A gun is a tool and just like any other tool, the user MUST take responsibility for the use of that tool. Also, stating mass shootings occur "every few weeks" in America unlike England without context and proof is rather weak.

Discussing Japan fails to discourse on the differences of culture, respect and capitol punishment, something we have lost in America but Japan still adhered to.

3. A CCW citizen stopping an armed attack "never happens?" Wow, if never means NEVER, then what about these:

Just two days after the CT shooting, the San Antonio theater shooting was STOPPED by a CCW (media totally quiet about that one!) http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html

What about the Oregon mall shooter stopped by an armed civilian? http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen

4. Two fallacy's are used here: appeal to emotion and burden of proof. The author states those who say, "We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have" are the "same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible." Really? What an appeal to emotion.

So all people who say we need to enforce current laws are hereby trying to make the law weaker. REALLY? HOW?

Where is your evidence? Oh, no where.

The truth is, the NRA and Republicans have pushed for background checks, smaller clips and laws we have CURRENTLY. The truth is, every crime is a crime against a law. If there were no law, no law would be broken, right?

By definition, we have a problem with laws being broken even though MORE laws are being made and more effort to have waiting periods and background checks are being made. Besides, I AM FOR background checks and yet I also argue that we should enforce our current laws better. Just using me as an example BREAKS the logic of point #4.

5. I have never heard the NRA or Conservatives us this DEFEATIST statement. We do not say "Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?" We say, "Why punish law abiding citizens for the laws criminals break?"

This is a simple question the article does not answer!

However, we AGREE to make getting guns HARDER, we AGREE to background checks, we AGREE to helping mentally unstable people.

No where has any Conservative said we should not try to reduce violence. I mean, we stand for punishment - even Capitol punishment, we stand to reduce violence against children - even those not yet born!

6. Yes, the Second Amendment should be honored and to say Conservatives think no limitations should be required is not true. Conservatives with liberals, AGAIN, have voted for background checks, limit rounds per clips and waiting periods. However, the Constitution should ALWAYS be protected and enforced, that is a good fight to fight. The current Administration is already changing the 14th amendment to bypass Congress for dealing with the debt ceiling; in that light, we also see the 2nd amendment in danger of being changed as well.

It is not just about background checks, there is coming a move to restrict and hinder LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from self protection. Again, the article does not discuss that!

7. Again, no facts or cites given. Remember what Jefferson said in his letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824)

"The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Randolph p. 395

Jefferson wrote this in relation to the People exercising POWER over the government. We have seen, not in conspiracy theories, but in real life, that under Marxism and Communism the first thing to go were the people's power and voice.

That happened through gun control.

Answer me this: when guns are limited for the people, are they also limited for the government?

Or perhaps you want to discuss Fast and Furious?

8. I have not heard this point argued, but I would take it further: Guns are a part of the American Constitution resulting in our freedoms from tyranny and influencing our culture. Yes indeed.

To equate guns with slavery is a typical fallacy but I would say: slavery is still taught in history and artifacts/historical documents are still sold in auctions. So should guns, but some new laws coming down would even prohibit collectors from owning HISTORICAL guns.

A shame!

9. This shows my point already given: We have allowed for gun restrictions already! YES! But gun restrictions and gun control (and the extent of that control) are different and need to be further discussed.

10. This is offensive to even suggest, the article then admits "OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make." Ok, then DROP it! But no, the article then states, "it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments."

This is a classical Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy which states, "a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest."

The article suggests that the 'self interest' of gun owners actually ALLOWS for such tragedies as a price "they are willing to pay."

What a despicable thing to say, especially given Conservatives vow to increase punishment of violent crimes and make schools safer by increasing security and even armed guards!

When you write an article full of fallacy and biased opinions without evidence and conclude by BLAMING Conservatives and gun owners for ALLOWING these tragedies, you make my point succinctly: instead of placing blame on criminals, you blame law abiding citizens!

Number 10 is really the truth. I asked a friend who loves guns, what if it turns out, hypothetically, that instituting a ban on assault weapons, handguns, and having universal background checks saved 15,000 lives a year, would you agree? First he said, not possible, then I could tell he wanted to say no but saw the trap, In a round about way, he said no, it's my second amendment. Gun owners talk a big game about defense and safety, but its all bullshit. If all that turned out to be false they would still want their guns and not give them up. All I want to hear an intense gun owner say is, "it's worth the deaths for me to play with my toy." I would respect that person more than all of the rhetoric they spew about caring for the greater good of society.

let's keep this balanced. most gun deaths are suicides. In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[6] Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States.[7]

The line that some bureaucrat who spent a few hours at the ambit would short separate into Jason Goal and head out the somebody without doing author hurt than nifty has no base in actuality
http://www.realexamguide.com/N10-005.html

Anti-gun arguments are very weak...Okay, let me ask you guys something, why have dictators or totalitarian nations in the past and today have taken the guns and disarmed the public? To make it safer for the people? No, to gain more control over the society. And that is something that a powerful govnt like the U.S would be able to do if all of our guns were taken away (but that will never happen, sorry anti-gunners). How many people die from drunk driving accidents? Alot, but do they go to the motor companies and tell them to stop making those 2,000 pound cars that can go put to 100 mph because people are killing others with them? Nope.
Also, did you anti-gunners even look up the statistics of gun violence? The gun-free zones have the highest slaughter rates and yet the areas where guns are avialable have the lowest...strange huh? What roll of the dice would you prefer? To be unarmed when there is a maniac harming you? Because the police wont save you the police show up when the crime is over..Remember that..
You guys don't even know what an assualt rifle actually is. Also, the whole "the founding fathers could not have imagined todays weapons"..Uhh yes they could have, because they themselves saw the drastic change of weaponry in their own lifetime, they saw from the first muskets to rifles that was a 22 shooter, dont remember the name of it all I know is that it was French. So to say that they could not have seen advance in guns is retarded. Thats like saying we today can't see anything past the AK-47. Go figure.
2nd amedment was not there hunting because back than if you didnt hunt you did not eat..It was for defense and to protect from oppressive govnt which is certainly what we need to be aware of here in Corporate America. Your arguments are weak and are laughable..Just saying

And your slavery arguent is silly, yeah, slavery had to go, because they were people under control and were even worked to death. This is about people (with decent backgrounds) owning a gun, not slaves. A weapon you can defend yourself with, not a human being you own and works for you in horrible conditions. Pathetic argument. They enforce every gun law there is, the whole "we need to enforce more" is retarded, both the left and right wingers talk this crap. They enforece it all, try going to a gun owner and buy a gun without proper ID and license, not happeneing. Gun owners dont want to go to jail the rest of their lives if you didn't know. And also, in England for example, have a much less population, we have over 300 million people here, yeah theres going to be more shootings and over 75% of them are gang related.

Ok so instead of leaving a pile of my brain dead absolutely worthless opinion in the form of words I'm just going to post facts. 1- this country was based on conservative republicanism, not a democracy or libertarian. If you do not know the actual base meanings of these forms of government, you should not be speaking on the subject. This country was based on our beliefs as gun owners not yours. Go live in china, or England where these laws that you want already exist. Stop pushing them on us in the land of the "free."
2- who cares what someone does in their own religion. If someone wants to sacrifice themselves to their god, why should I stop them. Again, land of the "free"
3. Learn the definition of assault rifle.
4. The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from government as well as intruders. If you think an armed populace can't fight a modern army, just go ask the cave people how it's working for them. Holding us off for ten years now. Oh wait that war is just for oil and is based off a lie. Better keep listening to the goverment.
5- if Background checks are the best you can come up with as an alternative to simply stripping an amendment, then I wonder how long this country will actually last. Sorry that was an opinion.
6- 80% of the entire worlds prison population with over 100,000 proven innocent people behind bars to this day. Land of the "free." not relavent, butit this is the judicial system your willing to put your rights in the hands of.
7- Its not the issue of people being able to stop an armed mad man, its the mindset of the mad man knowing he's walking into a place that could have dozens of armed citizens inside. Ever notice how the mass shootings only happen in gun free zones? Now, how many of the "assault rifle" owners do you think will give up their guns when a ban comes into play? Then the govt starts kicking in doors, people start dying, a civil war ensues. And you want to be the one to encite that? Who is the crazy gun nut?

1. How come gun grabbers don't like to talk about the gun control laws that are already in place that don't serve their purpose, such as the Federal Gun Free School Zone act of 1995? The truth is gun grabbing liberals don't want to talk about it either. They just want to shove their propaganda and lies down everone's throat evertime a tragedy such as Newtown occurs.

2. Comparing the number of mass murders in the US to other countries like England and Japan may be a compelling argument, but it doesn't account for socio-economic factors either. Factors such as poverty and the treatment of mentally ill persons are not considered when comparing gun violence in the US and other countries. If gun control worked in the US, then places like Chicago and Washington DC would have virtually no gun crime. Chicago and DC have the most restrictive gun control in the nation and yet gun crime in those isolated areas is much higher than other places in the US.

3. Armed citizens prevent crimes all the time. A mass shooting at an oregon mall was stopped by a civilian with a concealed weapon. If you had done even 5 minutes worth of research on this argument, you would have discovered that 1 in 10 mass shootings are in fact stopped by armed civilians. There are statitistics that show as many as 800,000 violent crimes are stopped in the US by armed citizens.

4. There are over 20,000 laws restricting guns in the US. The majority of them are virtually unenforcable. How do you expect criminals, who by very definition, refuse to obey the laws of society to comply with gun control laws? Prohibiting narcotics has only created a monopoly for organized crime in the US and wasted billions of dollars of tax payer money fighting the war on drugs. How would the prohibition of firearms be any different?

5. Mass murders are not always commited by people with guns. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a bomb made from fertilizer, racing fuel and a box truck. As I stated before, criminals do not follow laws. That's what makes them criminals. Law abiding citizens are the only ones punished by stricter gun control laws.

6. A tiny fraction of this argument is true. Most rights are subject to limitations. No one has the right to kill someone, and yet it happens all the time. However, the 2nd amendment is the only amendment in the bill of rights that has these 4 words: "shall not be infringed"
Nidal Hasan, the shooter at Fort Hood has a muslim name. What does that have to do with anything in this argument?

7. Arguing that widespread gun ownership would lead to democracies being overthrown by despots makes no sense at all and is your weakest argument by far. The US population has more guns than any other nation and the government has not been overthrown. (The US isn't a democracy either but that's anothe subject)One of the first things Hitler, Mal and Stalin did before commiting the largest mass genocides in the history of the planet was ban guns. History tells us that government tyranny is not a conspiracy theory.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Both of these are quotes from Thomas Jefferson

8. Guns and the right to own them isn't just a part of American culture. It is a cornerstone of the liberty of this land and what makes it so great. Slavery up until the 19th century was just as much a part of the entire worlds culture, not just the US. Slavery is still a big problem in many less fortunate countries, ironically in countries with strict gun laws like china and india. The progression of human rights is a good thing and the world has come a long way to put an end to slavery, but it's no excuse to infringe on the rights of free people to bear arms.

9. It is very easy to cite biased polls and journalism as proof that americans want more gun control especially after a tragedy like newtown tugging at the heart strings of american people.
The truth is, the general movement over the past two decades has been against greater gun control. Most americans do not believe that stricter gun control laws will prevent mass shootings.
Most americans are more concerned with the economy than anything else.
And let's not forget the huge spike in gun sales further invalidating the argument that americans want gun control.

10. Stereotyping gun rights advocates as a bunch of vigilantes playing cowboy and disregarding the safety of others couldn't be further from the truth. Mass shootings such as the one at the Aurora theater primarily occur in gun free zones. Most gun rights advocates do not want these things to happen and would do anything to prevent them if they could. The problem is, their hands are tied for the most part due to gun restrictions already in place.
How many mass shootings were there at schools before the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act Of 1995? This act has made it nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to defend themselves on school property. James Holmes specifically stated that he chose the AMC movie theater because of the restrictions against concealed carry.
As for the 30,000 gun related deaths in the US, the majority of those are suicides. This once again points to the lack of care for the mentally ill in the US. Once a person decides that they want to kill themselves, very little can be done to change that. Addressing the needs of the mentally ill in the US is a much bigger problem than gun violence.

These are 10 reasons why articles like this are liberal gun grabbing propaganda.

1. It's not the time to make emotional decisions. A little logic goes a long way. They want to ban weapons for their cosmetics and larger magazines (can switch these out easy and quick). Is this the root cause of the issue?; I don't think so... Will it help?; I don't think so either.

2. The root cause is likely related to mental illness caused by a failing society. A society that sits more behind a keyboard, then goes out side and plays catch with their children. A society where reality TV teaches children its ok to cuss and poke-at other peoples' self confidence. I don't think anyone has clear metrics or picture on why other countries behave as they do. Their violent crimes I hear are higher, and their culture is different.

3. It does happen, but the media doesn't get their kicks from publishing it so wide-spread as they do with bad news.... In most states, you have to take a class to legally carry a gun....

4. In the media today, there is widespread confusion on what "military style" and "assault weapon" means... Some of the politicians are confused as well... 'we need a big red button'.... 'why?'.... 'because it will be easy to see'.... 'Yes, but why do you need a button at all?'.... 'Umm, ummm, blah blah......'

5. Criminals will find other means of killing, they always have, and do.

6. It's just a continual errosion of rights, regardless of their original intent. Some people stick up for the rights that are near-and-dear to their hearts...

7. Well, let's say in the future, there is an invading country... I'd rather have my fellow americans armed...

8. On a related note, so is Apple Pie and Cheeseburgers, but New York is starting to do something about that. lol

9. If you look at the polls, 2012 is the only year that the numbers really say that... I wonder why, recent events that we are emotionally responding to, yes.

We also have the right to life. We are the ones who have to protect the children. If we can save even one we should try. If we continue to consider only the rights of an individual an
not the welfare of many we will surely implode.

I think the government will do something about having guns in the homes of thousand citizens in our country, however this will guarantee that we will not use guns to protect our yard and homes from the infiltrators. But this one we should consider is the safety of our home and to keep our kids away from these weapons. Of course, above all is the criminal who always caught having a gun and also kill innocent lives.

The folks that say a gun advocate saying "guns don't kill people. people kill people" are saying that because it is simply true. If someone says "that phrase makes me want to puke", they are just as much part of the entire problem also. What both sides of this argument/scenario should understand is both sides have a point and there should be civilized conversations about what to do with these issues we have together! What makes me sick is a group of people trampling on the rights of someone else's simply because they don't believe it to be necessary. I don't abortion is necessary all the time either but the argument is "it's my choice". Well big f'n deal to your choice just like you say "big f'n deal' to my choice to be able to protect myself. And by that I mean protect myself how ever I see fit/necessary.

For the people that talk about "making more dangerous ammunition for assault weapons" clearly don't know what the hell they are trying to talk about because a simple, bolt action rifle can shoot a more deadly round than an assault rifle. The plain and simple difference between and AR-15 and a bolt action .223 rifle is the action; semi auto vs. bolt action. Oh and the scariness of it also.

If you want gun restrictions, restrict yourselves from them. It goes the same for a "Big Gulp" sold at a 7-11. If you think they are bad, then don't buy one!!! You rich, uninformed, liberal democrats that think the government should have a say in what you own or don't own should just go ahead and surrender yourselves to what you believe the greater good is and leave the everyone else alone. Besides, the people shooting up schools and movies theaters are from your own party in the first place!

If it weren't for the liberal softies that believe the death sentence is "too harsh", people (particularly criminals) just might have it in their minds there will be repercussions for committing these crimes in the first damn place! Oh no! That is just too harsh! We should let people live a life of ease while all the taxpayers pay for their cable bill, education, utilities, and court fees while they pay off a 10 year sentence for killing someone. When it's a family member of yours that gets taken from you, you'll get the reality check that has been coming to you! Trust me.

Enough with the "weapons of war" bullcrap. The second amendment guarantees us the right to own those weapons.

You need one of those to defend your bedroom?
Yes. I need that assualt rifle to defend my bedroom like...
- Rosa Parks NEEDED to ride at the front of the bus.
- Miranda NEEDED to be told his rights.
- Roe NEEDED to be able to obtain an abortion

It ain't about needs, it's about RIGHTS.
Telling me I don't NEED a pistol to defend my house (not bedroom) or telling me that I don't NEED an AR-15 to do the job is like telling Rosa Parks she can still ride at the back of the bus.

What I find amazing is how many things are left out in this list for the counter-argument:

First off, 1, is done by very few and an extemist argument which isn't fair to those who are proposing logical arguments for guns advocacy. Anyone could pose the same arguments for those against guns/etc.
2. You try and make it sound as if only guns have the ability to kill people. Let's talk deaths: Cars kill far more people in a year, than any gun ever has. Even worse is people do not follow the law on the road, and constantly defy it. You can bring up guns are a problem, but I can bring up far more cases where someone has been stabbed to death in a year, bludgeoned, or flat out run over.

3. The truth is there could be a decent amount more stopped than allowed, which I'll tie into : (5 in a second)

4: Another extremist argument. Not really a good one at that for anyone using any kind of logic. The problem is this kind of logic is contained by people who don't want to get involved, the same with traffic laws (see 2 on my counter argument) or other incidents, or aren't flat out paying attention.

5. Now, a police officer can hit civilians, and so can armed civilians, however, let me ask you:

Would you prefer to see one armed man kill dozens of innocents, and then possibly himself leaving multitude of victims

or:

Would you rather see a innocent shot, but a madman killed before he can kill a group of people?

There is no win-win, but at least in the second case even if a few innocents are injured, at least they are alive. In the first case, you have far more victims, which is exactly what we don't want to happen correct?

Let me add in, even without guns, people intending to do harm to others WILL find means to do it, whether it be melee weapons (machete, swords, bats, axes, bare fists), using the objects around them (cars) or anything else for that matter. If you leave innocents unable to fight back in 2-3 cases they have no fighting chance.

Same goes for schools, had many officers been armed, maybe Adam Lanza would have been stopped prior to the murders he committed. Sure some children would have ended up at least injured if not worse, but less victims would have been a better outcome.

Let me not mention one more argument for 3 and 5: A criminal with experience is more likely to act out and shoot someone after holding people up with a gun than one who isn't. In such a case, some would-be-criminals, can easily be intimidated by a law man with a weapon or a civilian. (I had this happen from past experience as a child, some people tried to break into my house, my father pulled a shot gun out and warned them----> They got out of there quick!) which is my point.

A gun doesn't just have to be used as a weapon or to be used with deadly force, it can also intimidate. (Psychological attacks are just as effective on people as physical attacks at times)

The rest of the arguments presented are a mix of absurd or extremists arguments and have no reason to be brought up.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree that stricter laws do need to be set up for gun control, however, we also need to stop focusing on guns when they aren't the only problem. How many people have to die in a year before auto-mobiles are taken into account or bludgeoned by a hammer? Reckless driving, drunk driving, you name it have killed more people I know than any gun has ever done within my lifetime. That's not intended to say "lol guns shouldn't be brought up" but more that "Guns and other factors need to be taken and accounted for and the blame on only one factor is silly."

And people need to think outside the box in some of those instances like I mentioned. When you think guns are the only thing that can easily kill a vast group of people... Oh, you are so sooooo wrong.

We also need to start cracking down on institutions that allow bullying right under their eyes and act like nothing happened.

You want to know why people start killing others oftentimes as of late? The most often seen reasoning is bullying (see multiple columbine incidents) The teachers, principals, and more need to start stepping in and watching more carefully than sitting behind their desks 24-7 and looking the other way.

People have to understand those victims (with a few exceptions) were not entirely innocent of the cause of it. It's kind of like a chain reaction really:

Kid lives>>> Kid gets bullied >>> Kid continues to become bullied, no one steps in >>>> Breaking point >>>> Obtain weapon >>>> Set plans to kill those who tormented them.

Heck, in highschool, there were people who bullied me, and even came up to me once and said "We're surprised you didn't end up trying to come to school with a gun" ... As if they were tempting fate.

It's not just Americans gun culture that's a problem, it's their philosophies (freedom means I can treat everyone like crap because logic), their inability to understand retaliation or cause and affect (You just punched me, why would I lend you a pencil?) and their inability to accept any responsibility, and I'm not even talking about gun owners...

Because if you look at other countries, last I checked, Japan had far worse bullying, but their philosophies (There is no such thing as Freedom to do or act however I want) and social spectrum is quite different.

Until we start tearing at the source of the violence, we will never be truly "free" in America from it. Even if you prevent some people from obtaining guns, they'll find other means, because trust me, guns did not start warfare, and more than likely they will not be the end or causation of the end if they are removed.

I'd also like to add before ending my comment: People seriously need to learn to analyze their surroundings. I heard in a recent school attack where someone brought a melee weapon, the guy attacked people, and others sat back and watched without actually stepping in to stop it.

You can argue they were afraid to get involved, but the problem is, if a football player hadn't tackled him, there would more than likely have been a murder instead of just injuries (from an inexperienced criminal) The problem within America isn't just our culture, it's our whole messed up society, from corrupt government officials, to politicians, to companies and more. If we don't try or attempt to change it now, it's going to be far worse.

To those who made comments on games/etc.: Playing them too much is not the wholesale problem. In fact if you check crime rate has dropped dramatically ever since their existance. The more problematic part is people's attitudes (the I don't want to get involved attitude, the "I can't think outside the box or think about hardcore issues" in general attitude, or other.

You have to admit, guns aren't the reason for those kind of attitudes, are they?/sarcasm.

who ever came up with this list is some type of special. in my 18 years i have yet to here a gun owner say the isht you came up with. it pretty comical actually. you people are the type that would get scared at seeing a civilian carrying a gun. "oh my goodness he has a gun, he is a danger to society!"

If this is what you are going to base your counter arguments off of then you are going to need to do a little more research when you start debating someone who has done a little research themselves.

I rarely hear anyone say number 1, and I myself never would say this anyways. Gun ownership is a very complex issue and I get that. However, it does become increasingly easier to understand why you should go buy a gun of your own whether it is an handgun or a AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine(I don't recommend these things due to how expensive they are, they will weigh down your gun, and they can be unreliable. The Aurora theater victims are lucky he chose a drum magazine because the gun quickly jammed and he had to resort to his sidearms to continue the slaughter)

Number 2 is is 100% true. More people are killed by knives, bare hands, hammers, and baseball bats than rifles. The vast majority of gun related murders are done with handguns and generally small easy to conceal handguns that usually carry 10 rounds or less. Rifles in general which range from grandpa's bolt action to the death machine AR-15 and the FBI doesn't split the two apart due to how the action functions. Long arms are used in 1% of all the murders in the US every year.
To argue that suicide is a reason why we should ban guns is just a fallacy that doesn't address the issue. Guns appear to be a good choice because they accomplish it quickly and as painlessly as possible. However, it isn't the only way people kill themselves and there are tons of ways to do it. Japan suffers greatly with its high suicide rate and those people choose to hang themselves or jump off of high things. A simple visit to your local pharmacy or hardware store has all sorts of stuff you can consume that can kill you. There is also just cutting your wrists or throat with a knife. If there is a will there is a way, and banning guns is not going to deter this people, and doesn't solve the real problem those people are facing anyways.

Number 3 is also a little off. While you don't need to necessarily be armed but it has been shown that if you fight back the death toll for in a potential mass shooting is 1-2 people. Chances are though unless you are armed yourself you'll be that 1 guy if you jump an armed opponent, but at least you know you will probably save over 10 more lives since when an mass shooter faces no resistence the average death toll is 14. Oh just to give it some perspective it isn't considered a mass shooting unless 4 people die.

Number 4 is true. Many violent criminals end up going through the system multiple times, or are correctional system turns these people into violent criminals.

Number 5 is also true. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to consider some level of restriction and I really only see background checks as a respectable form of restriction just to prevent it from being too easy. It doesn't help for years the feds were allowing straw purchases to drug cartels. We will be paying the price of that terrible program for years to come.

6 through 8 are all related to each other. It is a constitutional right and a recent Supreme Court decision pretty much cemented the rights of individuals to own even "assault rifles." Which real assault rifles are guns with the ability to go full auto or shoot bursts, not auto loading firearms which is 19th century technology by the way. These guns are so expensive and hard to get due to the firearms act of 1986 which banned the production full auto/burst weapons for civilian ownership. It already required strict federal regulation through the National Firearms Act by the ATF which required an extensive background check, and a 200 dollar tax stamp. However, private sale of these firearms is still allowed if the weapon was made before 1986, but they come with a premium price tag in the 4 to 5 figure price range. None of these weapons have been used in a crime in a loooooong time.

You also should be worried about losing out more of your civil liberties. The fed has been constantly expanding its powers since its inception throughout history, and the government has unjustly imprisoned in the past, and conducted mass genocide against the native americans and oppressed all sorts of minorities. There have been times when the establishment fails, and it will fail again and you will be left to your devices. Also remember that it has been ruled by the supreme court that police are not obligated to protect you, and ultimately your safety is your responsibility. If you think you can escape and avoid danger, good on you, but be aware there are many situations which you can lose control of and when you are put into a corner and your life is in danger good luck to you, you'll need it.

ALL OF THOSE TEN REASONS SOUND REALLY GOOD DON'T THEY. MAKE A LOT OF SENSE DON'T THEY. HERES THE RUB. MOST ALL OF THESE MASS SHOOTERS USED A AUTOMOBILE TO GET THE GUN! THEY USED A AUTOMOBLE TO GO TO WHERE THEY USED THE GUN! AND THOSE THAT ESCAPED USED AN AUTOMOBILE TO ESCAPE ON! SO SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THE AUTOMOBILE IS THE PROBLEM! YOU MAY THINK THAT SOUNDS REALLY STUPID, MAYBE BUT NO MORE STUPID THEN YOUR TEN REASON BUBBA.

this article is incorrect in saying that mass shootings are never stopped by civilians carrying. it actually happens more than you would think. the reason they dont get publicity is because 1. liberal media doesnt want to cover it, and 2. they arent defined as mass shootings because very few innocents are injured
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit

I can see your point and understand why you are arguing the issue. My personal feeling is mostly based on the constitution, which is being whittled away one politician at a time. I am hanging on for dear life to what remains from our forefather's given they wanted to have a free society. I do NOT condone forced religion on anyone, and yet, I am a Christian. I believe in free speech and I am upset that one can sue because someone called them something derogatory (morally I am against defamation of character). To sue over that is stupid. The ones who SHOULD be compensated are those falsely accused and then persecuted for such things as child molestation. There is NO coming back to a place of normalcy, given how the media would tear that person to shreds, putting them on trial in the media before all the facts are presented. To be accused, but in fact innocent, will ruin a life and a family. Yet, I support free speech, I want to legally be able to express my opinion but those who would disagree only allow my "protest" demonstration to be in a certain segregated area away from eyes that might be opened to the truth or ears that may just learn a previously unknown fact or two.

So, that said, moving on to the 2nd amendment.
In your writing above, I get the annoyance for #1. NOW is the time to discuss ANY issue that has come to light. Not sweep it under the rug. It is a travesty that Colombine and Newtown and all those other examples here in the comments happened. What is worse is the extended coverage the media provided, hyping up people like you who apparently fear others who legally own firearms. The media (very biased media, far from the initial INTENT of the media-to inform the public without passing judgement in either direction)loves to push the left political agenda. Why? The all mighty dollar. They get some sort of compensation to exploit tragedies and sweep under the rug the important, life affecting issues of our turbulent times. Did you know the ATF sold guns to the Drug Cartels in Mexico with the intent to track them, yet failed to install the damn trackers?? The government is hoping with the body count rising due to these sanctioned illegal sales would give more power to those who would dismantle the constitution, specifically 2nd amendment rights.
#2 struck a cord with me. If my intent is to do harm, I will find a way. Yes, even a baseball bat will do. I am not a bad person, I don't think anyone (except psychopaths like Ted Bundy et al) is a "bad person" per se. I do think normal people can have good intentions, or bad intentions. If you have bad intentions towards me and mine, I will gladly turn my dog loose on you. I will back him up with whatever is within reach, could be a lamp, a piano wire, my fist, or it could be a firearm of some sort. If I theoretically were disarmed as you seem to think law abiding citizens should be, then you are assured, as a person with bad intentions towards me and mine, that I am unarmed and that your illegally gotten firearm outreaches the distance I need to bash you on the head with my lamp. My lamp sits there passively until I pick it up with the intention to harm you to defend ME. I do not have bad intentions, I have good intentions that include keeping my family safe. Guns do NOT kill. people who pick it up and pull the trigger kill. Sadly, sometimes it is a child who finds a gun, is not informed to leave it alone and shoots a friend. Sad indeed that the adults responsible happened to be IRRESPONSIBLE in this case.
#3 I have had a gun shoved in my face during a robbery, twice. Once when I was 17 and again when I had recently given birth to my 2nd child at 27. Neither time did I have a weapon I could have grabbed and used. If I had, I would not have been robbed. Both times, the gun the perp used was stolen. If I had a concealed carry permit, do you think I would have hesitated to draw? Nope. The difference is my intentions are good, keep everyone safe. If, however, I feel unsafe or that my life is in eminent danger, I am a perfect shot. I was taught well as a child to respect firearms, and how to handle them, use them, and to not be afraid or timid around them. I am very confident and calm, no matter the situation. So, given I have been robbed at gun point (ya, inches from my face) I can assure you, I know how I would react.
#4 The government is encouraging bad gun behavior and so is the media, giving those that would use a gun to kill another more than their 15 minutes of fame.Which brings me to 6
#6 The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the people are to run the government, not the other way around. Yet, why can't most sheeple see that practically all of those "trusted" government agencies and offices are corrupt beyond repair? Take the DMV. Sales tax on a new car. I sell it to Joe, and HE has to pay sales tax again. Double dipping? yes. Let's look at the ATF. Sold guns to cartel. How about FDA? It is run by fat cats in the corporate world of food production and pharmaceuticals producers. To actually protect the people would put them in the poor house, so ya, processed foods are great for you, never mind the added sugar in place of the fat in the low fat variety....we will prescribe lots of diabetes medications. Logical, right? And how about the GMO debate? Most people want to know what they are eating and yet big money defeated the attempt to inform. Monsanto (the devil who makes Roundup) wins again. They have put many a farmer in the poor house, and did you know that now the water we drink and the air we breath is contaminated with Roundup? GMO foods are resistant to Roundup, corn and soy etc. That chicken you get with the fat breast? not natural at all. You are eating lots of water and salt there, plus hormones. Yes, trust the government they know what is good for you, and guns are bad for you. Turn them in, we will melt them down (really sell them to criminals) and keep you safe. Yes, call 911 on your cell phone and we will stop that bad guy in his tracks, before he gets the chance to shoot you. i can see it now, the bad guy trembling in his boots as I threaten him with my cell phone to me ear. Corrupt government, and a disarmed society is nothing for the government to fear. Those countries that first collected guns, then family heirlooms (ya, I lost that too, to Castro, a sword used in the spanish American war or something) that HAPPEN to be a type of weapon, and then your personal space, then your personal belongings....did you know the government already OWNS a portion of your DNA, your essential makeup?
#7 Government has WAY too much power and freedom while they whittle away mine.
#8 American culture includes many things. Yes, guns are part of that. Do I think that a gun that is beautiful to look at and that sits there passively should be disposed of simply because a maniac used one to kill a child? no. Slavery is not even CLOSE to this topic, as that is abusing a person, not an inanimate object. Come on, not a good comparison. Apple pie is an American culture icon, and yet all that sugar kills people with diabetes, cholesterol, heart disease.....maybe we should outlaw apple pie too.
#10 Snarky. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other preventable illnesses also kill, so outlaw cigarettes, plastic, anything with "bad" cholesterol, ban sugar, stop feeding cows GMO corn (and ground up dead cows), stop growth hormones (cuz 9 year old girls now have tits FOR PETE'S SAKE) bring back prohibition due to drunk drivers, euthanize all dogs and cats due to bites that can kill, outlaw deodorant that contains aluminum that seems to contribute to breast cancer, shut down ALL car manufacturing because gas as well as hybrids are bad for the environment, (ya, hybrids. the multiple batteries are toxic and cannot be recycled, and electric only cars use electricity which loses heat -energy- while traveling to the end destination, shall I go on?)
And most of all, stop people from commenting, because that would count as free speech, and may as well get rid of that too. Sheeple.

Excuse me, sorry to be a bother but, would you mind citing all of your sources, I'm seeing lots of opinion and not as much fact backed with proof, so i was wondering if you would mind citing the sources you used for #3 because never is a nearly impossible statistic to use and I'm fairly certain is incorrect in this context. #4 because you stated there are loopholes, but didn't share the source of information on the loopholes. #7 because this isn't an argument I have ever read or heard before and I would like to know who it was that argued this. #9 once again, statistics were used and I would like to know what polls were used (obviously ones that were in favor of more gun control). #10 I'm obviously not asking for a source here because you stated that it isn't an argument that is made by pro gun activists, but I am merely questioning the relevance of this point to the rest of this list, seeing as how it is a list of rebuttals to actual arguments by pro gun activists, therefore is pure opinion when the list implies this is a factual web document.
I'm not being a nuisance for the fun of it, I only ask because I am writing an editorial for a class and this would make for a great source if I could have some proof to back up your statements

If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far. If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

NO! Every mass shooting that we know of takes place in an area where guns aren't allowed. If an armed civilian was had been there then the killer would have been contested. Like schools, movie theaters, and airports; all of these places restrict guns and if a personnel with a fire arm would have been there then the gunman could be stopped, but your gun restrictions got in the way of that didn't they? you can make all the stupid gun laws you want, but the ugly truth is that there will always be ways to get firearms, and it wont be good because the weapon will probably be an automatic.

Now for the biggest cliques every that maybe if we beat enough times it will freaking sink into librals heads!:
1) any time a government had banned any and all weapons it's usually followed by a mass killing
2) if no guns is the answer to street crime then please explain why Chicago who had the strictest laws is number one in homicide
3) your logic is roughly the equivalent to saying to stop drunk drivers no one should have a car
4) you have all sorts of rights in this country, religion and guns are two, you can choice to be an atheist and but own a gun but when shit hits the fan and your house is now invaded by a lunatic your going to call people with guns and pray they get there in time.
5) how many of you liberals (especially Colorado and Washington) smoked put before it was legal? Cause the fact it was illegal today stopped everyone from getting it. So that must mean when things are illegal the law never gets broken. Wait a sec arnt k-12 school considered "gun free zones" yet school shootings still happen omg you mean people break the law?
So yeah let's take away a means of defence from law abiding citizens so only non-law abiders will have them that seems logical. So that being said, Mr. Walden and liberals, what you've said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Everyone in this feed is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...

Good lord... Look at what is going on in the world. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a gun nut. I don't have safes filled with guns or years of food on hand. But I like to think of myself as prepared. Our world alliances may drag us into a war we don't want and one of those wars might be right around the corner beginning with Israel. Israel is an ally of the United States. Iran is an ally of Russia. Iran has said that one of their main goals is to wipe Israel off the map. What happens if either one starts a war? Iran might attack hoping Israel is too busy with Palestine. Israel might attack Iran in an attempt to remove the threat. In either case, that means that two of the world's greatest military powers will be forced to go to war because of our allies. Beyond this, either Iran or Israel could use nuclear options. But we'd just fight in Israel and Iran, right? No. there's no reason to believe that Iranian allies wouldn't seize the opportunity to attack America. First, most hate us. Second, it makes military sense to bring the war to us and distract us on our own land. If this happens, and hopefully it won't, I'd like to be prepared. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That is what got me thinking more about gun issues. Again, I'm not a gun nut. I own a few and I practice at the range, but I don't hang out with "gun guys" or make it a talking point every chance I get. Then, I came across this article and it blew my mind.

Let me respond as an "Average gun owner."

ARTICLE: 1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.
We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.

MY RESPONSE: But "now" isn't the time for any of that. "Now" is a time for mourning. It's a time for people to bury their dead and know that their countrymen are thinking of them and supporting them. Nothing is as important as our fellow man, and "now" leads to hasty decisions that benefit a small minority. Think of the Affordable Care Act and how it "needed" to be passed "NOW." I don't disagree with affordable healthcare for all, but the way this was written is a travesty. Think before acting on emotions because once it, as the author wrote "doesn't seem so urgent," people will think more clearly and discuss more rationally.

ARTICLE: 2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

MY RESPONSE: Are you forgetting the Malaysian who ran into a grammar school and murdered children with a butcher knife. Less access to a firearm only means they won't use a firearm. It does not, in any way, mean that they won't find a way. Along those same lines, had Timothy McVeigh had a gun, maybe he wouldn't have blown up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Or if those people we hear about every decade or so stealing armored tanks only had a gun, maybe they wouldnt have stolen a tank and drove over a few city buses. If someone is suicidal and wants to take others with them, they're going to find a way to do it.

MY RESPONSE: Beyond this, the statistics are out there. The CDC has been collecting data on this since 1981. Well over half of gun deaths are suicide. And if someone wants to kill himself, he sure as hell doesn't need a gun. in 2010, gun deaths attributed to homicide accounted for only 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people. In the same year, it was 6.3 gun related suicides per 100,000 people. And again,with or without guns, those people would not be with us. Yes, mass shootings are terrible things, but those are accounted for in CDC reports. All you have to do is look it up. Again, it's terrible, but the "big-picture" numbers essentially show that gun related homicides only account for 0.000036% out of ever 100,000 people in the USA. (Here's a synopsis of the CDC findings: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/ )

ARTICLE: 3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

MY RESPONSE: How come it never happens? Because THE CIVILLIAN TAKES OUT THE SHOOTER BEFORE HE BECOMES A "MASS-SHOOTER." Look up the scores of videos online where civilians take out bad guys before anyone gets hurt. How many can you find where the civilian blows away an innocent bystander? Yeah, that's what I thought... Additionally, highly trained police officers do not "often kill bystanders." Yes, it has happened, but the occurrence rate is infinitesimal. As for civilians "taking out" threats, yes, it happens. It happens more often than you'd like to admit. No one has to do it like Jason Bourne. What the civilian has on his side is the choice. Once the bad guy is engaged in his activity, he's committed. The civilian can choose to lay low or take out the threat if he feels his own life is in danger. The average concealed carry civilian didn't choose to carry because he wants to be some Rambo cowboy. He wants to protect himself and in any threatening situation, he has the choice to defend life if he feels it's threatened, or let the bad guy do his thing and leave if he doesn't think life is threatened. But if he chooses to draw his weapon, he's probably got far more practice and training than the bad guy. Here in Illinois, we need 16 hours of training to carry a firearm. Much of this is covered in the courses; looking at possible collateral damage, when it's better to just let the bad guy do his thing and leave, and far more topics. I'd strongly suggest you take the Illinois course; it will definitely give you a different perspective of gun owners and the care and consideration they have for their weapon and those around them.

ARTICLE: 4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.
The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.

MY RESPONSE: I have nothing to disagree with here. My take on this is that we need to write some common sense laws, get rid of bogus laws, and outlaw fully automatic weapons for civilian purchase. No one needs an AK-47 for home protection or deer hunting. If nothing else, let gun shop and range owners purchase them so people can rent them and use them at the range.

ARTICLE: 5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?
The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.

MY RESPONSE: I'm on the fence here. Criminals will definitely always find guns no matter what. Even if we snapped our fingers and they all magically disappeared from the USA today, there would be 10,000 coming in on a ship somewhere by next week. Guns are like Marijuana. If there's a demand, there will always be someone to supply. And as far as it goes, Illinois just adopted a new law about the transfer of guns. All gun transfers need to be logged with the State Police unless it's purchased from immediate family. So, if I'm carrying my wife's gun, I'm fine. If I'm carrying a gun I bought from some guy at a swap meet and it's still in his name, both he and I will be arrested on felony charges. I think this is a pain in the butt, however, I think it's a step in the right direction even though it might take a good amount of time before we start getting some of the suppliers caught.

ARTICLE: 6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.
Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

MY RESPONSE: Here's something I agree with and disagree with. There need to be limitations, but both sides shoot for extremes. This is how politics work. Advocates ask for no restrictions because they know the opponents will want crippling restrictions. Hell, this is how all negotiating works. Do you go to a car dealer and say, "You want $30,000 for that car. I can afford $30,000." NO! You go in and say, "You want $30,000 for that car. I'll give you $20,000!" You start at an extreme and hope that the car dealer meets you in the middle because you know he sure as heck isn't going to say, "I want $30,000, but I can let it go for $23,500." No, you both want the best for yourself and you both start at the furthest extreme you can simply because you're hoping to meet in the middle. You know you won't get your way, but you posture and make ridiculous statements to get the other person to move.

MY RESPONSE: As for "every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others," you're right. But how many people are being actively threatened? According to the CDC, only about 3.6 out of every 100,000 people.

ARTICLE: And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.

MY RESPONSE: This is just an attack based on stereotypes and generalizations. Additionally, when is the last time a terrorist attack in America had anything to do with guns? Terrorists want mass death. They're going to use planes, trains, and bombs. They're not coming over here to shoot us.

ARTICLE: 7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.
If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

MY RESPONSE: I agree with this to a point. In our more civilized society, most gun owners would be ticked off, but they'd give up their guns if the government passed a law to ban them and came knocking. I'm sure there would be plenty of incidents, but the vast majority would cave in. On the flip side, most would probably still keep a few hidden under the floorboards.

ARTICLE: 8. Guns are a part of American culture.
Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.

MY RESPONSE: Again, I've owned guns, I know a couple firearms enthusiasts, and I've been doing a lot of internet searching lately about gun culture. This is the first time I've heard this argument. Are you trying to stretch this to 10 points because you wrote your title before you wrote the article?

MY RESPONSE: And as far as it goes, slaves were human beings with feelings. Guns are inanimate objects. Keeping guns around to put holes in targets doesn't oppress the gun. If my gun jams, I don't beat it up or kill it. If I have a bigger gun, I don't force it to mate with another gun so I can sell its baby bullets to other gun owners as "good stock." Two very different topics here, my friend.

ARTICLE: 9. The American people don't want more gun control.
The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.

MY RESPONSE: I can agree with this. A lot of gun owners support more restrictions because we want it to be harder for criminals to use them. And if criminals do use them, we want the penalties to be severe. One idiot makes hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners look bad. Virginia Tech. One guy goes off the rails and people (let's be honest, liberals) want all guns banned because the possibility exists that someone else might go off the rails. Where are these people when some drunk gets in his car and mows down a family on vacation?

ARTICLE: 10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.
OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.

MY RESPONSE: It's not the truth that lies behind all the other arguments. But let's whittle your number down into perspective... You say 30,000. OK, so with 315,000,000 people in america, that's 0.000095% of the population each year. The number I found was 32,000 per year. But of those 32,000, 20,000 were suicides so they don't count. Again, if someone wants to kill themselves, they'll do it with or without a gun. The gun just makes it quicker and less painful. So we're left with 12,000. 500 to 1000 of those are accidental discharges that kill the gun owner or someone nearby. But let's include those people because they were deaths. So, that leaves us with 12,000. So 12,000 people die from intentional use (misuse) of a gun every year. OK... 12,000 divided by 315,000,000... carry the one... 0.000038% That's the percentage of people killed yearly by guns. And what about people legally killed with guns by police? That would drop our number down to 7,300. So, do we disarm our police and let them take their billy clubs to the gun-toting criminals? In the end, people dying for any reason is terrible, but there are far more deaths by other means. I'm not saying any shooting is OK. I'm just saying that your argument is no backed up by the massive number you'd like it to be. The statistics are out there. Everything I used was from CDC and .gov reports. Let's look at it another way... 600,000 people die from heart disease every year. That's 588,000 more than people who get shot to death! Why is gun ownership a bigger issue than heart disease? I'm guessing it's because you don't want to infringe upon someone's right to eat junk food. You just want to infringe upon the rights of millions of legal gun owners because every now and then, one of them ends up being a murderer. Maybe you just see heart disease as slow suicide by junk food and tobacco. Or perhaps, like most liberals, you just hate fat people and look the other way when they die from clogged arteries. (It's not so nice when someone makes sweeping generalizations about you, is it?)

MY RESPONSE: Anyway...

MY RESPONSE: For me, guns in America have become so commonplace over the years that getting rid of them will be impossible. There are estimated to be 270,000,000 guns among the population. That's 89 guns for every 100 people. There is no way to get rid of them and disarming legal owners does nothing but leave guns in the hands of illegal possessors. Sure, we'd get them eventually (after they get arrested), but if only the bad guys have them, crime will skyrocket. Considering most police stations only report between a 4% and 12% rate for solving muggings and about 20% nationally for gas station and convenience store robberies, that crime streak could last a very long time. Getting rid of guns does nothing but take them out of the hands of legal owners who want the ability to defend themselves and their families. That's all I want to do. Hell, I carry a gun at work (I secure foreclosed properties and sometimes there are gang-bangers or homeless people squatting). I've never even unholstered my weapon, but I'm glad I have it in case I need to defend myself. I would hate to have to use it, but if it comes down to a gang-banger or me, I'd prefer to go home to my kids at the end of the day. So, in the end, if I need to draw my weapon, it will be in defense of life and for no other reason. THAT is how most legal gun owners feel about their guns, not how you portrayed them as extremists who look the other way when criminals do what they do... crime.